Lydiard Imitations

HRE wrote:

I am not sure but strongly suspect that the people who have run under 2:05 or so are human but "aided." No one can answer your question about Radcliffe because no one knows.

A 2:15 for a woman is equivalent to 2:01-2:02 for a man. That's several minutes faster than 2:05. Shouldn't you be more concerned about Radcliffe's time, than you are about a man running under 2:05?

If not, that is quite a blantant double standard.

Personally I have no issue with any of the times, provided the men are human, and the women are women.

Nobby probably would do a better job with this than I will. But here goes.

Lydiard was never that fussed about what sort of intervals you did and he was never really specific about small differences in times. So in your example, I think he would have been more interested in the effort than in the particular times of each rep. He'd be more interested in how the session unfolded.

If, for example, you started out on pace for an average of 57s in your session but started struggling late in the session to the point where you went from averaging 57 over the first eight to where you'd slowed to an average of 60 by the time you were done, he'd have thought that you were too ambitious and would have been better off going for 60s.

Assuming, however, that you were able to maintain those splits consistently, he'd probably want to know what you were looking to do with the sessions. If you were looking to run 3:50 for the mile he'd likely say that you need to get accustomed to the 57s. If you were looking to run 7:40 for a 3,000 the 60 second reps might be more useful. But again, the times would matter only in a general sense and would be used more to measure the progress of training than as an evaluation of one particular session, i.e, overall, have you been progressing from 60s to 57s or regressing from 57s to 60s? But also, yes, if each session leaves you as tired as the other the value would be about the same. I cannot imagine him getting too deeply into evaluating the relative merits of each session.

As far as the recovery goes, the question would not be how much time the recovery should take. The question should be "When are you fully recovered and ready to go again?" Whatever the answer to that question is is how long the recovery should be.

As to the use of words like "intervals or repetitions" and whether he used them interchangeably, again, Nobby spent more time with him than I did and could do better with this than I can. But if he was being really precise with his terms, he called the fast bit "repetitions" and the recovery time or distance was the "interval." But I also have heard him use the terms interchangeably. In the quote you have here I think he's using the terms interchangeably.

I have as many questions about her time as I have about any other existing record. However, the wall to wall pacemaking could explain why her time might be "worth" more than the men's times.

Thanks, HRE.

Euro Runner wrote:

It would be much more relevant to compare Rui Silva with Rod Dixon (who trained using "aerobic first" principles) as both were initially middle distance runners who competed over a range of distances and both moved up in distances over their careers. In contrast, Snell and Coe remained middle distance specialists throughout their careers.

No it wouldn´t. Rui did build all his career around 1500m eventually. His 1:44 was a 52s+52s split that shows to what kind of endurance he got. Until the present and after many serious attempts on HM his pb is 63min.

Of course that he willn´t be as good performer on long distance (5k and longer) as he used to be on middle distance.

SlowFatMaster wrote:

Hi Antonio:

I was just wondering, what is Rui Silva's VO2 Max? Also, in another post, you mentioned that his test results (VO2 and LT, I think, maybe even economy) right after a big competition (Olympics, I think) were his worst test results for the entire season! Would you be able to share those test results?

In addition, do you believe Rui Silva can have success at 5000 and 10000? Thanks.

I have that values done on the field, not on a tapper on laboratory, but i have that on another computer, therefore you need to wait.

How things are.

Since the issue of "Lydiard imitation" changes to "doubt that he recent past and present got on drugs", i repeat what i said earlier.

The Lydiardist just start to think that the recent past and present world top class runners do the kind of performance they do because of talent, only after that Lydiard training did poor results than on the past related to the runners of the same period.

The same about the drug subject. The refusal to admit and accept that the present runners do better performances mainly because better training, they open the drug debate.

On the past when someone question and doubt about the drug that the Finns did use - namely blood transfusion and namely Viren the best Finn of that period among others, the Lydiardist said that it´s just Lydiard training. Actually it´s dug suspicion on every world top class runner.

The Lydiardist argumentation changes relate the opportunism not relate the training methodology.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

On the past when someone question and doubt about the drug that the Finns did use - namely blood transfusion and namely Viren the best Finn of that period among others, the Lydiardist said that it´s just Lydiard training. Actually it´s drug suspicion on every world top class runner.

A question for you: how many entries for "Lydiard, Arthur" are there in the index of "Lasse Virénin menestyksen portaat" (2003) by Rolf Haikkola? And how many for "Cerutty, Percy" and "Iglói, Mihály"?

Another question: if it is possible to consider the Italians of the same era as individuals who either used blood doping, used it at one time or another or never used it, why is it impossible to see the Finns in the same way?

Is this index really significant? To me it conveys no more information than their PBs.

If someone has a higher ratio, it could mean that (a) they developed their endurance (i.e. 1500 skills) better or (b) they have less speed (i.e. 800m skills) than the other guy.

And when we start extrapolating from 3000/5000 times, you have to ask how often that athlete got into a fast paced race at the right time of the season and whether they got near their potential.

Euro Runner wrote:

It would be much more relevant to compare Rui Silva with Rod Dixon (who trained using "aerobic first" principles) as both were initially middle distance runners who competed over a range of distances and both moved up in distances over their careers. In contrast, Snell and Coe remained middle distance specialists throughout their careers.

My comparision was with respect to the era, not the runner.

I can not have the same certainty about the performance of Rui Silva or Coe as i can with Snell or Ron Clarke, or Filbert Bayi or Herb Elliot because of the availability of different aids.

That aside i find Cabrals analysis lacking.

Silva, Coe, Snell and Dixon were all very different runners.

Coe and Elliot was very small and light, having a very good natural talent towards endurance. Why should they focus on slow endurance for a long time?

On the other side Snell was big and heavy, obviously lacking in the endurance side. The same was to a lesser extent true for Dixon, maybe also Clarke.

Their muscular and hormonal response to the same training will obviously differ.

Why do we think they should do the same training or periodization?

Yes it would, especially if you want to compare runners' performances over a range of distances. However, if you cannot accept that Rui Silva started his career as eseentially a 1500m runner and who has moved up in distance as his career has progressed then it is difficult to understand how you see Rui Silva's career.

Even more relevant would be to compare Dick Quax, who like Rui Silva sarted his career as a 1500m runner and won a medal in the Olympics. He then competed in later championships at 5000m, again like Rui Silva. The similarities are blindingly obvious.

The index of resistance that really is relate the capacity to resist with a minimum of pace decline from one shorter distance event to longer distance doesn´t consider what is the event specificity or best distance choice of any runner. Effectively can be done just by relate one pb to another.

ex: 800m pb in 1:44X2=3:28. Or if the pb is 3:30 as Rui Silva just 3 seconds of lost. But Sebastian Coe 800m 1:41X2=3:22 and with 3:29 lost 7 seconds.

The pair of 800-1500 (mile); 5000-10000; 10000m-HM and HM-marathon are classic issues of analysis.

If you did that analysis by runners from the same training method to other to other training method, you will realize that that´s not significant one type of training to other. However it´s relevant that the Lydiard training doesn´t show no special benefit to produce good index of resistance, what means that Lydiard training doesn´t nothing special on the aerobic and strength endurance variables that it´s supposed that the runner gains while follow the Lydiard method.

I did analyze more 100 Lydiard runners referenced and they don´t show no special, no better resistance than other runners from other method.

If you want to relate Rod Dixon wit Rui go ahead and do it. What´s the conclusion ? that Rui is poor aerobics (that is the main condition to be fast on long distances, yes it´s true. As you see it´s not necessary have high aerobic condition to be a good performer in middle distance (800,1500m, mile), much better than Coe or Snell.

The reason of one argument and opinion it´s not based how many entries. I may have one entry and be right and you may have thousand of entries and you will be wrong in your opinion

Where i said that Finns are guilty and the italians innocents ? I don´t remember.

I just name the Finns because the said that most of that period, their success it´s done by the Lydiard method when the main reason of sucess it´s blood transfusion. Kantanen, Vasala, Viren, Pekka Paivarinta etc. But not Vataanen he was not a Lydiardist, that by the way also did blood transfusions. I don´t remember that the italians did Lydiard training.

However the Finns where the ones in the athletic sport that did teach the italians to take blood transfusion, or if you wish the italians did learn from the Finns how to use blood transfusion.

The correct answer is 3 for Lydiard, 0 for Cerutty and 5 for Iglói, but for goodness' sake, it was a stupid joke! I have no argument with you here! The point of the joke was that while "Lydiardists" may well believe or boast that the training of Virén was Lydiardian - but it could well be that Haikkola wouldn't agree or that he would rather call his method a development of Iglói's method rather than "a Lydiardian imitation".

Of course, it could be that Haikkola is a vain man and just doesn't want to give credit where credit is due or that he is a stupid man and just doesn't understand his own method, but at least he knows the training of Virén better than most. including many who write about it. He also knows that there was more than one "school" of training in Finland, which may come as a surprise to many.

(BTW re: the interview linked to by "wetcoast": Keith Livingstone's account of Viren's 20x200/200 - actually 2x 10x200/200 with a 5 min series pause - differs somewhat from the one in Haikkola's book. Also: Virén ran his WR of 13:16 in September; in July he won in 13:19)

Come on! Don't play silly or stupid! (Or read more attentively, if you didn't.)

Väätäinen - but four out five is outstanding! (If you hadn't omitted Kuha this time, you would have scored only 4/6, which would have rated "Very Good Indeed!")

Renato Canova can give us names of Italian runners of a certain era and tell us which of them used blood doping and when they did or did not and I have no problem with it - and I haven't noticed that you have any, either - because I can presume that he knows what his talking about. But when you talk about "the Finns" or - the same thing, really - give a list of names that includes practically everyone who ran in a final or even a semi, I do have a small problem with it because I cannot trust you to have the same authority on the subject and I hate cheap generalizations.

Would I be completely wrong if I suspect that you were less certain about every one of those Finns, if no one ever mentioned Lydiard in connection with them?

The usual story is that this happened the day Kari Sinkkonen gave a lecture to an audience of Italian coaches (who to their big disappointment were not revealed any great secret of training methodology by the "Dr") and/or when Jarmo Punkkinen stepped in as the head coach of the Italian national team in XC skiing.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

I did analyze more 100 Lydiard runners referenced and they don´t show no special, no better resistance than other runners from other method.

If you want to relate Rod Dixon wit Rui go ahead and do it. What´s the conclusion ? that Rui is poor aerobics (that is the main condition to be fast on long distances, yes it´s true. As you see it´s not necessary have high aerobic condition to be a good performer in middle distance (800,1500m, mile), much better than Coe or Snell.

Different runners and coaches will find different training methods to get to their goals, and these obviously depend on the physical and psychological qualities of the athlete. For a runner starting as a 1500m specialist ultimately gaining an Olympic medal, Rui Silva has so far been quite successful moving up in distance with a medal in the European Cross Country championships and qualifying for the World Championships at 5k and 10k. Not that many world class 1500m specialists moving up have done that. In this case it is more relevant to compare Rui Silva with other world class 1500m runners with a similar career profile, i.e. who moved up in distance with some success. For interest in this discussion, you could look at Dixon and Quax, or perhaps even Ovett (also an Olympic bonze medalist over 1500m), as they trained differently from Silva being more "aerobic first" trainers.

To compare Silva with Coe or Snell is comparing a different category of runner - if you look at the career and results profiles. Both Coe and Snell remained 800m/1500m specialists throughout their competitive years. Besides Coe was not at all an "aerobic first" trainer if you believe the accounts of his training. I would say that his training approach was closer to that of Silva rather than that of Snell.

Serious, no joke, i really don´t understand what´s your point.

You ask me questions, then you knew the answers, after i let you know my opinion. If you know the answers better than me why do you ask me questions ?

This is what is stupid dialogue (from you).

But i want comment about something you refer. You refer wetcoast and Keith Livingstone. Both are a true model of independent opinion ! (laugh). Wetcoast is an independent journalist, a independent reporter, an independent writer about training and distance run. Keith is also an independent coach. The only problem is that in every couple of ideas, one or two refers something connected with Lydiard. Some say they have one Lydiard agenda, but i don´t think so.

With this independent people, we don´t need no more "free thinkers", they are the finish example of independent opinion.

The man that thinks that "the most influential theorist in the history of run training was Arthur Lydiard", the man that wrote this trash article is another independent coach, not affiliate to Lydiardism.

http://www.peaksware.com/articles/running/linear-vs-non-linear-periodization-in-running.aspx

Linear vs Non-Linear Periodization in Running

By Matt Fitzgerald

The most influential theorist in the history of run training was Arthur Lydiard. (...)

Antonio Cabral wrote:

... But Rui Silva is much better [than Peter Snell and Seb Coe] at every level of resistance and aerobic you want to consider. ... And if we go to longer distances, the events that require best aerobic condition that Snell can´t be relate because he didn´t got interest in long distances, but with just 1:44 Rui did 7:46 and Coe just 7:57,4. Just form the record Rui Silva is a 1:44, 3:30, 3:49, 7:46 BUT ALSO 13:19 and 27:53. This shows without no doubt that Rui got the best training method from the point of view of the aerobic condition from all the three. ...

I still have doubts. I am not sure that your INDEX/RATIO OF RESISTANCE tells the whole story. Please tell me, because I really don't know the answer to this: Is running economy race specific?